D. Extradition, immigration and deportation 19. The decision to extradite, remove or exclude a person from a country where he or she has close relatives or has established a private life through work or study, may constitute an interference with their private and family life.817 E. Privacy, Policing and Surveillance 20. The reality is that interferences with privacy rights are at the heart of any effective policing strategy. As such how to lawfully interfere with privacy and data protection, has to be understood. 21. The European Court case of Klass v. Germany, emphasised ‘the danger such a law poses of undermining or even destroying democracy on the ground of defending it, affirms that the Contracting States may not, in the name of the struggle against espionage and terrorism, adopt whatever measures they deem appropriate. The Court must be satisfied that, whatever system of surveillance is adopted, there exist adequate and effective guarantees against abuse. This assessment has only a relative character: it depends on all the circumstances of the case, such as the nature, scope and duration of the possible measures, the grounds required for ordering such measures, the authorities competent to permit, carry out and supervise such measures, and the kind of remedy provided by the national law’.818 22. ‘Stop and search’ procedures engage the right to respect for private life. The European Court has held that it is not permissible to search a person unless there is a reasonable suspicion of their involvement in wrongdoing. 819 23. Once an individual is being formally investigated by a law enforcement agency on suspicion of having committed a crime, respect for their private life is almost certainly engaged. Private life will be a relevant factor to be taken into account once information about an individual is stored and processed. Sharing of information on individuals is also an interference with privacy rights, which if it is to be lawful, must be justified. 24. All forms of covert policing and surveillance will engage the right to respect for private life including e.g. CCTV schemes where any images are recorded, processed and stored;820 collecting samples such as fingerprints and DNA; 821 and policing methods, such as entrapment.822 25. As regards more specifically telephone tapping, the law should: 817 European Court, Mehemi v France, 26 September 1997. Klass v. Germany; Leander v. Sweden, 26 March 1987. 819 European Court, Gillan and Quinton v UK, 28 June 2010. 820 European Court, Peck v UK, 28 January 2003. 821 European Court, Murray v UK, 28 October 1994. 822 European Court, Texiera de Castro v Portugal, 9 June 1998. 818 133